MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2943659325 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111070.79

79 The impact of orthodontic treatment regulation in the german public health sector on the overuse of orthodontic services

2018· article· en· W2943659325 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueOral Presentations · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Practices and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensCapital District Health Authority
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGermanHealth carePublic sectorNegotiationMedicinePublic healthPopulationQuality (philosophy)Family medicinePublic health insuranceBusinessNursingEnvironmental healthHealth insuranceGeographyEconomic growthPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

<h3>Objectives</h3> The provision of orthodontic (dental) care is part of the German Public Health sector comprising 90% of German population. The current regulations for the provision of orthodontic care in the public sector have been adopted in 2004 as a negotiation-process between providers and public health insurance companies without patient participation. To date patient-related data on the impact of the 2004 regulation on the quality and quantity of orthodontic services are lacking. In addition, patients (mostly adolescents) preferences and perceptions toward orthodontic treatment are almost unknown. Therefore, we first examined the content of the 2004 regulations in terms of formal criteria for treatment access, diagnostic and treatment guidelines as well as treatment duration. Secondly, we analyzed medical health record data to obtain information on real utilization of orthodontic services as diagnostic and treatment procedures. Finally we examined patient’s preferences and their role in the decision-making process. <h3>Method</h3> In the first stage we examined the formal criteria of the regulation of orthodontic services regarding treatment access, appropriateness criteria for diagnostic and treatment procedures as well as quality control. In the second stage we surveyed adolescents aged 10 to 14 years (n=2.991, 29% response rate) insured by a public health care insurance company before or at the beginning of treatment related to their perceptions of toward orthodontic treatment need using validated and standardized questionnaires. Finally, in the third stage we analyzed medical record data of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment from 2012–2017 (n=5.514) insured by a second, independent public health care insurance company to obtain quantitative data on the real utilization of detailed orthodontic services including diagnostic records, treatment procedures, costs as well as treatment duration time. <h3>Results</h3> Treatment guidelines adopted 2004 are mandatory for both providers and insurance companies. They regulate access through objective criteria and define criteria for the use of diagnostic and treatment procedures. Parallel guidelines adopted simultaneously regulate payment system and quality control. The described regulation has following impact on utilization of orthodontic services: Diagnostic procedures as panoramic X-ray and cephalograms were performed routinely (85%–90%) although their use is limited to defined diagnoses according to radiation guidelines and should not exceed 30%. About 64% of the patients received removable appliances despite their inappropriateness and inefficiency in comparison to fixed appliances. The mean treatment duration time was 36 months given that the published standard for a mean duration should be no longer than 18–20 months. Dentists were reported (81% of respondents) to be the primary driver for patients to start treatment. 93% of the patients reported to no complaints before starting treatment. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The use of inappropriate diagnostic and treatment procedures as well as prolonged treatment duration indicate overuse of orthodontic services in German public health sector. As diagnostic and treatment procedures are strictly regulated by treatment guidelines adopted by provides and public health insurance companies the overuse of orthodontic services seems to be driven by regulators, health authorities and providers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,308
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,991

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,269
Tête enseignante GPT0,547
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle